Few people expected all the items in Measure B to go into effect after its passage last June. Even though it was approved by nearly 70 percent of voters, most of the aspects of the measure between the city and various unions remain hung up in the courts and are likely to stay that way for some time.

Two days after it passage, the city filed an action in federal court, looking to pre-emptively determine the legality of Measure B. At about the same time, city unions, employees and retirees filed lawsuits in Superior Court, followed shortly thereafter by another suit from retirees.

The city dropped its federal suit in October, allowing it to focus entirely on the state actions after a Superior Court judge consolidated the six union, employee and retiree cases and ruled state actions would go forward and not be stayed in favor of federal actions. As an alternative, San Jose filed a cross-complaint to expedite a legal decision in state court to include its federal claims, according to a memo by Rick Doyle, the city attorney.

In the meantime, the consolidated cases have been through two judges and are now on their third, and nothing has been expedited.

Although some of this litigation may be heard in court this month, it appears the cases are languishing. "It's like the whole thing is being administered as quickly as a glacier," one city official told The Resident.

Advertisement

And, until the courts rule on the validity of specific Measure B segments, the city is locked into the long-term court drama, which is running up some large bills.

The city has managed to take advantage of some aspects of Measure B that aren't subject to litigation. New employees, for instance, are not tied to the older system. The new system allows them to choose a lower-cost plan either putting more money in their pockets now or retiring with more money, depending on how much they want to contribute voluntarily to their retirement.

Since Jan. 1, the city eliminated bonus payments out of retirement, resulting in savings of about $8 million, according to Mayor Chuck Reed, although this is one segment being questioned. The city also implemented a new lower-cost health care plan, saving the city another estimated $8 million.

The city has set new police and firefighter retirement at 60 instead of 50 or 55 and other new employees must wait until 65 to retire. Current employees will be able to either pay more to keep their current plan or move to a less expensive plan for future years, which phases in at a slightly higher retirement age.

But other questions regarding when the courts will resolve Measure B litigation appear to be fixed in limbo. Among these are the supplementary retirement benefit, the 4 percent employee contribution and disability retirement. It may take as long as three to five years to reach a resolution, if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court, Doyle said.

San Jose can't use its own attorneys because these are bound into their own union. Instead, the firm of Meyers Nave from San Francisco is representing the city for the six consolidated lawsuits. So far, San Jose has paid $873,000 for its services.

According to Doyle, several other suits have been filed including by the Police Officers Association, which has initiated two other pension- related legal actions against the city, alleging failure to meet and confer and a motion to compel arbitration.

Another seven legal actions relate to unfair labor complaints to the Public Employees Relations Board in relation to Measure B. These actions are awaiting a determination letter or a decision from the labor board.

They include actions by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Operating Engineers Local Number 3, the International Association of Firefighters and the City Association of Management Personnel/Association of Maintenance Supervisory Personnel IFPTE Local No. 21.

The city chose Renne, Sloan, Holtzman & Sakai from San Francisco to represent it in these seven actions. So far, this has cost the city about $300,000.

"There's a lot more coming down the road," Doyle said. "We could easily end up spending seven figures."

Motions and hearings are scheduled for March and April. According to Doyle, on April 23, the court will hear a motion dealing with core issues--the supplemental retirement benefit, disability retirement and the 4 percent employee contribution that is scheduled to begin June 23. Doyle doesn't expect a court decision until mid to late summer on those issues.

Whatever the court decision, there are likely to be appeals, he added.

Earlier this year, Reed said the city might have to spend a lot of money to get all Measure B provisions implemented. "The first year of savings from Measure B will more than pay for all the costs of litigation," he said.

The city might not be able to take advantage of those savings until after the the next couple election cycles.